High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1148/2016dismissed

Smt. Nain Majumdar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-05-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1148 of 2016 Smt. Nain Majumdar W/o Shri Animesh Majumdar, Aged About 30 Years Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Bhawanipur, Janpad Panchayat, Police Station And Block Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Collector, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue)/ Prescribed Authority, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Tahsildar, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri A.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondent-State :

Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 02/05/2016 Heard.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing issuance of notice dated 25.4.2016 in respect of meeting which is scheduled to be held on 2.5.2016.

-22. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the place where the meeting is to be held has not been indicated in the notice. Earlier, date of meeting was fixed on 19.4.2016, but no communication has been made as to what proceedings were drawn. Seven clear days notice has not been given resulting in violation of provisions contained in Rule 3 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994.

3. The petitioner has rushed to this Court on the aforesaid allegation when "no confidence motion" is not passed against him. It is only when the "no confidence motion" is passed against him, he may have a cause of action. In the event any motion is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner may challenge the action on the ground which are being stated in this petition.

4. With the liberty as aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen